12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity

Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions has put together a list of Twelve American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity. The list includes responsible actions on the part of the government, as opposed to the childish spending package that Congress is about to vote on. Things such as a payroll tax stimulus, reducing taxes on the middle class, providing homeowner’s assistance, investing in American energy, protecting the rights of workers, controlling government spending, and abolishing the death tax are all true improvements that will help "We, the People," unlike the pork-filled American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Please join me in getting the word out! It is time that we speak out! Click the link below for more details.

Washington solutions of more money for more government, more power for politicians, more debt, and more bureaucrats will not lead to real growth in jobs and prosperity.

We need a clear and decisive alternative that creates jobs and rewards work, saving, and investment.

via American Solutions – 12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity .

Hi, it’s Joanna from the homeschool group in Maine. Sorry to be commenting so late–I just came across this post.

It seems to me that the economic stimulus legislation that has been passed and is pending also contains some of the important features you mentioned in this post–homeowner’s assistance, middle-class tax relief, investments in American energy. Could you say more about why you prefer Gingrich’s way of dealing with these things to Obama’s/Congress’?
I am still trying to understand these things. It seems to me that the apparent economic prosperity we were enjoying, fueled by speculation, consumer debt and the production of more and more stuff, wasn’t economically or ecologically sustainable, or good for our spirits either. And yet the downturn is causing a lot of immediate misery. I don’t see clearly how, at a governmental level, we can ensure that people have what they need without inflating another bubble. It’s a little easier to see on the personal level–thrift, competence, neighborliness, humility would all go a long way.

admin

Hey, Joanna! Thanks for your comment! Now it’s my turn to be sorry for replying to your comment so late. I agree with you that our old way of doing things wasn’t sustainable. Debt has become a way of life for Americans. We spend and spend until we have nothing more to spend and then we spend some more. It’s sad, and it is destroying us. We put ourselves here. We are to blame. I also agree that we need to make a change on a personal level, which is why I’ve promoted Dave Ramsey’s plan for financial – and personal – peace for several years.

Unfortunately, we have a bloated government and that needs to change as well. It’s not enough to change on the personal level (although that will do a lot, I agree). We need to do more. We need to cut the fat off of our federal government, then move on to our states.

You are correct that some of the “headlines” that I mentioned can be found within the ARRA. The primary difference is how those things are attained. I, like Newt Gingrich, believe that true prosperity on a national level requires smaller government. It’s not necessarily what the ARRA does that is wrong, it’s how it does it. For example, the ARRA gives tax credits to middle-income taxpayers, which will increase the complexity of tax forms, which, in turn, will increase the size of the IRS. The 12 Solutions give a lower tax rate, which won’t do either of those things. With the 12 Solutions, 9 out of 10 Americans would have the same tax rate. Peace by simplicity.

I honestly don’t see investments in American energy listed in the ARRA. They might be there, but I can’t find them. If you can point them out to me, I would appreciate it. I see lots of energy-related spending, such as weatherizing individuals’ homes, but no investments in American energy, which will reduce our need for foreign oil and give Americans jobs.

Regarding homeowner’s assistance, I am not prepared to discuss the differences. There may or may not be any. Sorry.

For me, the biggest issue is the incredible amount of additional government spending in the ARRA. For example, $7.2 billion for “complete broadband and wireless Internet access.” That’s going to help the economy? What did continent-wide broadband Internet access do for Europe? I’m a huge fan of our national parks, but what is $750 million to the National Park Service going to do for the economy? I also support the Department of Defense, but $4.2 billion to repair and modernize DOD facilities doesn’t seem in the spirit of “American recovery.” I don’t mean to sound argumentative here, but just want to show you the mental process I’m going through as I read the provisions in the ARRA. It’s just crazy. We need to be doing things to reduce the burden on the people, so that the positive changes they make in their lives can actually have an effect. A spending package that will move our parents mistakes onto our grandchildrens’ shoulders won’t do it.

I hope this helps explain my position. I didn’t mean to write a book.

Joanna Hoyt

Thanks for the thoughtful and specific answer! I think I understand your position much better now.
I also would have liked to see defense spending cut, not increased; this bothered me under the previous administration and still bothers me under this one. I thought that September 11. 2001 made it abundantly clear that our advanced military technology is not able to keep us safe. And Iâ€™m not sure of the importance of expanding broadband access. I hear both partied totuting hgh-tech jobs as the way to success, and I wodner who they think will grow food and build homes and do all the other basic things that high-techworkers need. Not that web designers arenâ€™t also important :-)–I know they are; but it seems shortsighted to expect everyone to switch into high-tech work…
The ARRA does include some American energy investments, notably a large increase in funding to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; some of this is focused on conservation measures, as you described, but some is set aside for development of biomass and geothermal energy and for finding better methods for transmitting renewably generated power to the grid. This makes more sense to me than drilling for oil in protected lands. Extracting more oil is probably only a short-term solution, given that we burn fossil fuels much more rapidly than they are generated, and our fossil fuel use is also dangerously altering the climate.
I think we must be starting with very different fundamental assumptions about taxation. It seems to me that the income inequality in this country is neither politically sustainable nor ethically tolerable. In 2006 the richest 1% of americans received 22% of all US income. In the last 26 years the bottom 20% of Americans received a 1% increase in inflation-adjusted income and the top 20% received a 75% increase. Progressive taxation accompanied by spending on social programs to assist the bottom 20% strikes me as a reasonable palliative measure, though probably not an adequate substitute for changing the economc system that creates such inequalities in the first place.
I suppose the difference between my liberal friends and my conservative friends is that the former are deeply suspicious of big business and the latter of big government. Both have good points, as far as I can see. But of the two I have a little more confidence in government, and see it as a necessary check on or counterbalance to the power of large corporations. This is because the government, although it is a fallen system made up of fallen people, is still supposed to be accountable to its citizens and responsible for their welfare; whereas the leaders of large publicly traded corporations are supposed to be primarily responsible for maximizing profits by their shareholders. In a system driven by profit too many people are ill-treated or abandoned.
OK, thatâ€™s what I see. I realize youâ€™re seeing something very different. Iâ€™d be interested in hearing why you are especially concerned about big government, if you have time. I donâ€™t mean to argue either; Iâ€™d like to understand, and Iâ€™m excited by the chance to have a conversation instead of the shouting match which seems to be the usual method of carrying on disagreements about economics.